11d788fa   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Catawumpus :   
      
   >>      Insisting on your beliefs doesn't change the story told in   
   >> the Sakalika Sutta, which implies the Buddha's suffering.     
   >> Again, the sutta says he _endured_ the pain he received when he   
   >> was struck by a sharp piece of rock -- _not_ that he   
   >> transcended its effects -- and it credits him for enduring very   
   >> well, all of which would be nonsensical if he was     
   >> suffering-free:  no suffering, nothing to endure, and no reason   
   >> for the praise.   
      
   RaaN :   
      
   > You are employing the logical fallacy of equivocation.   
      
        You don't seem to know what the fallacy of equivocation is.   
   In order for me to be committing it I would have to be   
   offering an argument in which I switch between different senses   
   of the same word, for example relying on one meaning in my   
   premises and another in my conclusions.  But I've used my terms   
   consistently.   
      
   > en·dure/en?d(y)o?or/Verb   
   > 1. suffer (something painful or difficult) patiently.   
      
   > The term "suffer" in the definition of "endure" does not mean the same   
   > as the term "suffer" offered as a translation for what is distinct   
   > from pain, which may be experienced and indeed endured with or without   
   > such "suffering" in this latter sense of the word.   
      
        You've fallen into the same mistake Mr. Nobody made.  (Why   
   didn't you learn from his example?)  Again, I couldn't be   
   misunderstanding the word "suffering" in the English, since the   
   English doesn't use that word -- it isn't in either of the   
   translations I quoted from -- and your notion about its meaning   
   is nonsense, since it isn't there.   
      
   > Are you seriously going to persist in your folly due to ignorance,   
   > stupidity or maliciousness?   
      
        I'm not sure you could be much more foolish, ignorant, and   
   stupid.  After all, you're trying to insult me for my   
   imaginary misunderstanding of a word that doesn't appear in the   
   translations I quoted, and you're attempting to lecture me   
   about its meaning even though it isn't there -- a perfect combo   
   of idiocy and pretentiousness.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)